How we got the Mass translation we have

How we got the Mass translation we have

(iStock)

That congregations and presiders both overwhelmingly dislike the 2010 English translation of the Roman Missal comes as no surprise, but the story behind its creation and the suppression of an earlier English translation—one that had been long in the works—is as intriguing as any mystery novel or detective film. In Lost in Translation:The English Language and the Catholic Mass, renowned systematic theologian Gerald O’Collins, S.J., and John Wilkins, former editor of the British weekly The Tablet, give us an accessible, exciting, informative and virtually unassailable account (historically, theologically and linguistically) of how we have come to receive this liturgical translation that has given us “the dewfall,” “for many,” “under my roof” and “with your spirit,” among other challenging expressions, each time we gather to celebrate the Eucharist.

This short but impressively researched book opens with Wilkins’s page-turning account of how we got from Vatican II’s "Sacrosanctum Concilium" and the call for translations that facilitate “full active participation of all God’s holy people” (SC 41) to the 2010 English translation.

In the late 1990s and early 2000s curial officials—especially from the Congregation for Divine Worship (CDW)—stymied the ongoing and decades-long work of ICEL.

We learn of the establishment of ICEL (International Commission on English in the Liturgy) in 1963 by 11 bishops’ conferences from the English-speaking world, and how in the late 1990s and early 2000s curial officials—especially from the Congregation for Divine Worship (CDW)—stymied the ongoing and decades-long work of ICEL, issued idiosyncratic translation directives in the document "Liturgiam Authenticam" (2001) and established a new oversight committee named Vox Clara to ensure that the liturgical translation would reflect what the CDW wanted. Among their priorities was ostensibly a more literal translation from the Latin editio typica as opposed to what is often called “dynamic equivalent” translation, as well as the preference for so-called “sacral style” as opposed to conventional spoken English (the latter the CDW would deem language too quotidian for the liturgy).

As O’Collins painstakingly notes throughout the book, major contradictions exist between what the CDW and Vox Clara claim to have accomplished as set out in the directives of "Liturgiam Authenticam" and the translation as it actually exists. For example, there are numerous instances where not only does the 2010 English translation not reflect the literal meaning of the Latin, but also words are changed, added or their meaning adapted to fit what appears to be an ideological or aesthetic agenda rather than remain slavishly true to the editio typica. More egregious still is the introduction of theologically dubious, if not outright heretical, language into the liturgy (e.g., the preponderance of “merit” discourses found in the prayers of the liturgy that implies a not-so-subtle Pelagianism).

It isn’t too late to reclaim liturgical language that is more prayerful, understandable and theologically sound.

So what are we to do in the wake of this admittedly poor English translation of the Missal now seven years on? O’Collins and Wilkins suggest dusting off the 1998 ICEL revised translation that the CDW never allowed to see the light of day. The product of decades of work, accomplished by the best researchers, liturgists, theologians and translators, there already exists an English translation “waiting in the wings.” Given Pope Francis’s recent motu proprio (September 3, 2017), which restores to the local bishops’ conferences responsibility for translations, it isn’t too late to reclaim liturgical language that is more prayerful, understandable and theologically sound. But this will require humility and courage on the part of the episcopal conferences, which will have to concede first that the 2010 translation was misguided.

Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.

Theresa Maccarone

2 months 1 week ago

Great review. I ordered the book from Barnes and Noble today.

Leo Sprietsma

2 months 1 week ago

It's quite simple to go on the internet and find the good English translation and print it out for use in the Liturgy.

Lisa Weber

2 months 1 week ago

Thanks for this review of what sounds like a very interesting book. The 2010 English translation of the Roman Missal is often awkward. It would also be nice if it made some effort to have inclusive language.

Vincent Gaglione

2 months 1 week ago

For anyone to make comments on this issue, one first has to have had some experience speaking another language other than his/her native language. The fact is that, from one language to another, a literal translation doesn’t always serve the meaning.

Christ spoke colloquial Aramaic, not Hebrew, not Greek, and certainly not Latin. The article states: “Among their priorities was ostensibly a more literal translation from the Latin editio typica as opposed to what is often called “dynamic equivalent” translation, as well as the preference for so-called “sacral style” as opposed to conventional spoken English (the latter the CDW would deem language too quotidian for the liturgy).” I imagine Christ is having a good laugh about those who think that His words, spoken to and for the poor folk of Israel and having gone through numerous translations into other languages, should reflect a “sacral style” as opposed to his plain-spoken colloquialism!

Toby Gillis

2 months ago

Thank you, Sir. The pomposity of the pagan catholic church is laughable.

Wm M

2 months ago

The solution is as simple as it is elegant: Say Holy Mass in Latin the way you're suppose to and folks can choose for themselves which translation is accurate. The late, great Margaret Thatcher called such whingers "little puppies," and we all know what little puppies do all over the place.

Reyanna Rice

2 months ago

“Suppose to” is a matter of opinion and has flactuated over the centuries. Hate to burst your bubble but Jesus didn’t use Latin at the Last Supper. Most likely he was speaking Aramaic with some Hebrew if it occurred as the Passover meal and that depends on which gospel you read...

Reyanna Rice

2 months ago

“Suppose to” is a matter of opinion and has flactuated over the centuries. Hate to burst your bubble but Jesus didn’t use Latin at the Last Supper. Most likely he was speaking Aramaic with some Hebrew if it occurred as the Passover meal and that depends on which gospel you read...

LuAnn O'Connell

2 months ago

There is no "supposed to" about this. Mass was in Latin because it was the common language of the Roman Empire. Now--belatedly--mass is in the common language of each country, which is logical.

Help America keep bringing you stories like this

As a frequent reader of our website, you know how important America’s voice is in the conversation about the church and the world. We can't do it without you—America Media relies on generous support from our readers. Please visit our membership page to learn how you can invest in our work by subscribing to the magazine or making a donation.

If you’re already a subscriber or donor, thank you! If you login and register your print subscription number with your account, you’ll have unlimited access to the website. Please contact us at members@americamedia.org with any questions.